Public choices / October 2026

Child safety

Homework help, companionship and persuasive design can arrive in the same chat window. Families deserve understandable controls and services designed around children’s wellbeing.

Twinkle 24 / Brainstorming scenario

Children and AI: safe design before damage control

Make child safety a design requirement in publicly purchased AI and press for enforceable wider standards. Reduce manipulative features and provide human help when a child encounters harmful conduct.

Children need useful technology and a dependable adult response. Local access and learning would have to include safety, privacy and the ability to challenge a harmful interaction.

Explore the connected work

How it could work

  1. Test age-appropriate defaults and high-risk interactions independently before procurement.
  2. Require accessible reporting, timely human escalation and clear school/provider responsibilities.
  3. Publish aggregate incidents and fixes, and involve young people and carers in usability reviews without collecting unnecessary identity information.

Everyday example

A student can report a harmful chatbot exchange and reach a responsible adult without being sent through several anonymous forms.

Who could act and how it could be funded

National platform rules and state education procurement need coordination. Fund independent testing, staff capability and response teams as part of the service, rather than paying only for software access.

Fair-go safeguards

No unnecessary child surveillance or public incident histories. Safeguards must work for disabled children and diverse families. Education access should not require unrelated commercial profiling.

What would show progress

Time to human help; high-risk failures corrected; privacy exposure; accessible reporting; young people's experience.

Full room: ideas, tools and sources

Delivery roles: Australia's three levels of government · Victoria's parliamentary responsibilities.

What the children’s survey found

eSafety’s 2026 study surveyed 1,950 Australian children aged 10-17 between 2 February and 4 March. Of all surveyed children, 78% had used an AI assistant. Among children who had used an AI assistant or companion, 20% reported potentially inappropriate or harmful interactions and 32% had shared personal data or potentially sensitive information. Those last two percentages are of users, not all children.

Different protections, different costs

Safer defaults and independent testingLimit sensitive-data retention and test age-appropriate responses before release. Default protection reaches people who never find settings, but tests must cover real use and changing models.
Limits on manipulative designExamine emotional pressure, exclusive relationships and engagement incentives. Clear boundaries can protect children while leaving room for useful, creative and accessible assistance.
Age assurance with minimal dataAge checks can support proportionate access rules but can also collect identity data or exclude users. Compare privacy-preserving methods, error rates, appeals and deletion before selecting one.
Reporting and human helpA visible report button and timely human response make failures actionable. They need funded moderation and escalation, alongside prevention rather than relying on children to police a product.

Adults can act without exposing children

Parents, carers, educators and youth organisations can review a service’s retention settings, complaint route and safeguards with young people. Report specific harms through the service and eSafety’s official routes. For public policy submissions, use aggregated observations and remove names, screenshots and identifying stories. This page does not collect children’s accounts.

A public workbench

Source check: 3 October 2026. The choices here are proposals for discussion, not an adopted party platform. Follow the linked source for its jurisdiction, date and latest status.

Across the wider online world

Age-appropriate AI is one part of online safety. Harassment, image-based abuse, privacy, moderation appeals and platform design also affect adults. Those questions have their own room.

Homework help, or a relationship designed to keep them chatting?

A parent can set a screen-time limit and still have no idea what a companion asks a child to reveal. The policy turn is safer defaults, independent testing and human help when a tool crosses a line.

A question for the workbench

“Build the safety into the service. Don’t leave the child holding the instruction manual.”